EDP Sciences logo
Submit your paper
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 10 (2026) Acta Acust., 10 (2026) 23 References
Open Access
Issue
Acta Acust.
Volume 10, 2026
Article Number 23
Number of page(s) 17
Section Hearing, Audiology and Psychoacoustics
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/aacus/2026019
Published online 03 April 2026
  1. P.R. DeLucia, D. Preddy, D. Oberfeld: Audiovisual integration of time-to-contact information for approaching objects. Multisensory Research 29, 4–5 (2016) 365–395. [Google Scholar]
  2. P.R. DeLucia: Pictorial and motion-based information for depth perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 17, 3 (1991) 738–748. [Google Scholar]
  3. B. Keshavarz, J.L. Campos, P.R. DeLucia, D. Oberfeld: Estimating the relative weights of visual and auditory tau versus heuristic-based cues for time-to-contact judgments in realistic, familiar scenes by older and younger adults. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 79, 3 (2017) 929–944. [Google Scholar]
  4. D. Oberfeld, M. Wessels, D. Büttner: Overestimated time-to-collision for quiet vehicles: evidence from a study using a novel audiovisual virtual-reality system for traffic scenarios. Accident Analysis & Prevention 175 (2022) 106778. [Google Scholar]
  5. P.R. DeLucia, D. Oberfeld, J.K. Kearney, M. Cloutier, A.M. Jilla, A. Zhou, et al.: Visual, auditory, and audiovisual time-to-collision estimation among participants with age-related macular degeneration compared to a normal-vision group: the TTC-AMD study. PLoS One 20, 12 (2025) e0337549. [Google Scholar]
  6. P. Zeller, Ed.: Handbuch Fahrzeugakustik [Vehicle Acoustics Handbook]. Springer, Berlin, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  7. W.M. Hartmann: Signals, Sound, and Sensation, 5th edn. Springer, New York, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  8. U. Sandberg: Road traffic noise - The influence of the road surface and its characterization. Applied Acoustics 21, 2 (1987) 97–118. [Google Scholar]
  9. U. Sandberg, Ed.: Tyre/road noise - Myths and realities, in: Internoise, International Congress and Exhibition on Noise Control Engineering, 2001, Nederlands Akoestisch Genootschap, Maastricht, 2001b. [Google Scholar]
  10. European Commission: Commission Directive (EU) 2015/996 of 19 May 2015 establishing common noise assessment methods according to Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (CNOSSOS-EU), 2015. [Google Scholar]
  11. S. Kephalopoulos, M. Paviotti, F. Anfosso-Lédée: Common Noise Assessment Methods in Europe (CNOSSOS-EU). JCR Reference Report EUR 25379 EN. Luxembourg: European Commission Joint Research Centre. Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, 2012. Available from: https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC72550. [Google Scholar]
  12. L. Garay-Vega, A. Hastings, J.K. Pollard, M. Zuschlag, M.D. Stearns: Quieter Cars and the Safety of Blind Pedestrians: Phase 1. U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2010. Available from: https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/9474/dot_9474_DS1.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  13. M.-A. Pallas, J. Kennedy, I. Walker, R. Chatagnon, M. Berengier, J. Lelong: Noise emission of electric and hybrid electric vehicles: deliverable FOREVER (n° Forever WP2_D2-1-V4). Institut Français des Sciences et Technologies des Transports, del’Aménagement et des Réseaux, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  14. M. Pilgersdorfer, K. Runda, M. Conter, M. Gatscha, A. Pumberger, A.M. Müller, et al.: drivEkustik - Fahrverhalten in und akustische Wahrnehmung von Elektrofahrzeugen. Wien Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Innovation und Technologie, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  15. W. Jesteadt, L. Leibold: Loudness in the laboratory, Part I: steady-state sounds, in: M. Florentine, A.N. Popper, R.R. Fay, Eds. Loudness. Springer, 2011, pp. 109–144. [Google Scholar]
  16. M.S. Horswill, S. Helman, P. Ardiles, J.P. Wann: Motorcycle accident risk could be inflated by a time to arrival illusion. Optometry and Vision Science 82, 8 (2005) 740–746. [Google Scholar]
  17. P.R. DeLucia: Effects of size on collision perception and implications for perceptual theory and transportation safety. Current Directions in Psychological Science 22, 3 (2013) 199–204. [Google Scholar]
  18. C.W. Pai: Motorcycle right-of-way accidents-A literature review. Accident Analysis & Prevention 43, 3 (2011) 971–982. [Google Scholar]
  19. C. Mundutéguy, I. Ragot-Court: A contribution to situation awareness analysis: understanding how mismatched expectations affect road safety. Human Factors 53, 6 (2011) 687–702. [Google Scholar]
  20. R. Hanna: Incidence of pedestrian and bicyclist crashes by hybrid electric passenger vehicles. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 2009 DOT HS 811 204, Washington, DC, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  21. E. Verheijen, J. Jabben: Effect of electric cars on traffic noise and safety. National Institute of Public Health and Environmental Protection RIVM, Netherlands, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  22. J. Wu, R. Austin, C.-L. Chen: Incidence rates of pedestrian and bicyclist crashes by hybrid electric passenger vehicles: an update (DOT HS 811 526). National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  23. J.K. Caird, P.A. Hancock: The perception of arrival time for different oncoming vehicles at an intersection. Ecological Psychology 6, 2 (1994) 83–109. [Google Scholar]
  24. B. Sidaway, M. Fairweather, H. Sekiya, J. McNittGray: Time-to-collision estimation in a simulated driving task. Human Factors 38, 1 (1996) 101–113. [Google Scholar]
  25. P.R. DeLucia: Does binocular disparity or familiar size information override effects of relative size on judgements of time to contact? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Human Experimental Psychology 58, 5 (2005) 865–886. [Google Scholar]
  26. S.G. Hosking, B. Crassini: The effects of familiar size and object trajectories on time-to-contact judgements. Experimental Brain Research 203, 3 (2010) 541–552. [Google Scholar]
  27. G. Grimm, J. Luberadzka, V. Hohmann: A toolbox for rendering virtual acoustic environments in the context of audiology. Acta Acustica United with Acustica 105, 3 (2019) 566–578. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  28. ISO 9613-2:1999-10: Acoustics - Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors - Part 2: general method of calculation, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  29. G. Grimm, V. Hohmann: First order Ambisonics field recordings for use in virtual acoustic environments in the context of audiology, 2019. Available from: https://zenodo.org/record/3588303. [Google Scholar]
  30. J.B. Allen, D.A. Berkley: Image method for efficiently simulating small-room acoustics. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 65, 4 (1979) 943–950. [Google Scholar]
  31. J. Ahrens, R. Rabenstein, S. Spors: Sound field synthesis for audio presentation. Acoustics Today 10, 2 (2014) 15–25. [Google Scholar]
  32. M.A. Gerzon: Ambisonics in multichannel broadcasting and video. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society 33, 11 (1985) 859–871. [Google Scholar]
  33. J. Daniel: Représentation de champs acoustiques, application é la transmission et é la reproduction de scènes sonores complexes dans un contexte multimédia: Université Pierre et Marie Curie (Paris VI), 2000. [Google Scholar]
  34. V. Pulkki: Virtual sound source positioning using vector base amplitude panning. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society 45, 6 (1997) 456–466. [Google Scholar]
  35. W. Schiff, M.L. Detwiler: Information used in judging impending collision. Perception 8, 6 (1979) 647–658. [Google Scholar]
  36. W.L. Carel: Visual factors in the contact analog (Publication R61ELC60). General Electric Company Advanced Electronics Center, Ithaca, NY, 1961. [Google Scholar]
  37. D.A. Rosenbaum: Perception and extrapolation of velocity and acceleration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1, 4 (1975) 395–403. [Google Scholar]
  38. UNECE R138: Regulation No 138 of the Economic Commission for Europe of the United Nations (UNECE) - Uniform provisions concerning the approval of Quiet Road Transport Vehicles with regard to their reduced audibility, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  39. H. Steven: Investigations on noise emission of motor vehicles in road traffic: Umweltbundesamt, 2005, https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/publikation/long/3092.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  40. P.L. Smith, D.R. Little: Small is beautiful: in defense of the small-N design. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 25, 6 (2018) 2083–2101. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. M. Brysbaert, M. Stevens: Power analysis and effect size in mixed effects models: a tutorial. Journal of Cognition 1, 1 (2018) 9. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. J. Cohen: Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edn. L. Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, N.J., 1988. [Google Scholar]
  43. G. Békésy: A new audiometer. Acta Oto-Laryngologica (Stockholm) 35, 5–6 (1947) 411–422. [Google Scholar]
  44. A.G. Bennett, R.B. Rabbetts: Clinical Visual Optics, 3rd edn. Vol. viii. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, Boston, 1998, 451 pp. [Google Scholar]
  45. J.W. Tukey: Exploratory Data Analysis. Addison-Wesley Pub. Co., Reading, Mass., 1977. [Google Scholar]
  46. H. Huynh, L.S. Feldt: Estimation of the Box correction for degrees of freedom from sample data in randomized block and split-plot designs. Journal of Educational Statistics 1, 1 (1976) 69–82. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  47. H.L. Hollingworth: The central tendency of judgment. Journal of Philosophy, Psychology & Scientific Methods 7 (1910) 461–469. [Google Scholar]
  48. D. Oberfeld, H. Hecht: Effects of a moving distractor object on time-to-contact judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 34, 3 (2008) 605–623. [Google Scholar]
  49. H. Heuer: Estimates of time to contact based on changing size and changing target vergence. Perception 22, 5 (1993) 549–563. [Google Scholar]
  50. R.W. McLeod, H.E. Ross: Optic flow and cognitive factors in time-to-collision estimates. Perception 12, 4 (1983) 417–423. [Google Scholar]
  51. W. Schiff, R. Oldak: Accuracy of judging time to arrival: effects of modality, trajectory, and gender. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 16, 2 (1990) 303–316. [Google Scholar]
  52. Y. Hochberg: A sharper Bonferroni procedure for multiple tests of significance. Biometrika 75, 4 (1988) 800–802. [Google Scholar]
  53. G.T. Fechner: Elemente der Psychophysik. Vol. 2. Breitkopf und Härtel, Leipzig, 1860, 1 p. [Google Scholar]
  54. M. Wessels, D. Oberfeld: A binary acceleration signal reduces overestimation in pedestrians’ visual time-to-collision estimation for accelerating vehicles. Heliyon 10, 6 (2024) e27483. [Google Scholar]
  55. Z.H. Shi, R.M. Church, W.H. Meck: Bayesian optimization of time perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 17, 11 (2013) 556–564. [Google Scholar]
  56. B.K. Shaw, R.S. McGowan, M.T. Turvey: An acoustic variable specifying time-to-contact. Ecological Psychology 3, 3 (1991) 253–261. [Google Scholar]
  57. R.L. Jenison: On acoustic information for motion. Ecological Psychology 9, 2 (1997) 131–151. [Google Scholar]
  58. J.A. Swets, E.F. Shipley, M.J. McKey, D.M. Green: Multiple observations of signals in noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 31, 4 (1959) 514–521. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  59. R. Lichenstein, D.C. Smith, J.L. Ambrose, L.A. Moody: Headphone use and pedestrian injury and death in the United States: 2004–2011. Injury Prevention 18, 5 (2012) 287–290. [Google Scholar]
  60. D. Oberfeld, T. Huisman, P.R. DeLucia: Quieter vehicles result in riskier pedestrian street-crossing decisions. Preprint 2026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/nykfm_v2. [Google Scholar]
  61. D. Oberfeld, T. Huisman: Dataset: the effect of vehicle sound intensity on auditory-only time-to-collision estimation, 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/7DQGJ. [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.